There is no debate on 9/11...

[Yurebiz]

Meh I stayed up "late" today thinking about some things...
I haven't had time to mine reports for a single timeline as I said I would.. so instead...
I stuck up with Greening's topic line "What debate?" from a few weeks ago and come up with the following rant...
-----
There's nothing to debate.. because this debate has never started..
There is no official story provided by the government
Many side reports and documents may explain what happened, but there's not a single collection of these reports in one paper.

How can there be a debate on government complicity when congress does not wish to debate?

How can there be a debate for accountability when NORAD and FAA makes no charges against any official that may have been responsible for the so many errors?

How can I argue that the Official Account given by the government is false, when there is NONE?

There's nothing to debate. Planes crashed into buildings. Buildings fell down.

The 9/11 Commission Report is a scam. If you accept that trash as the story that will run down in your children's history books, you're a crook. It did not cover the money trail nor any other involvement besides de 19 hijackers. It was not assigned to do so.

The NIST is impartial and does not cover the explosive collapses of the twin towers. It was not assigned to do so.

No wonder there's nothing to debate.

If anything, can we debate on why isn't there a unified document given by the government yet? Or better yet, why do you self-labeled skeptics ACCEPT that there's yet no such work put out by them?

Shouldn't YOU skeptics be the first to, you know be SKEPTIC about them covering up their asses?

Shouldn't YOU skeptics be the first to push for accountability?

Apparently, NO.

Everything is OK, it was all explained to us. The twoof movement is delusional and all there's in to 9/11 was a gigantic cock-up to our defense system. Nothing to worry about folks. See, there's a few timelines here and some tapes here. Yup. Massive error in multiple agencies. There's no reason to look for the money trail folks, we know those stinky arabs were in it. Yeah.

I respect you guys deeply for all your scientific credentials and all. But god, can you please be real skeptics for once?

Can you admit that something smells fishy?

LIHOI, LIHOP, MIHOP, doesn't matter.

There was something wrong. there was cover up. Justified or not, there was cover up. And there still is, today.

And, most of all, can you admit that there's a need for a new investigative commission?

There's nothing to debate. Either you're skeptics or you're skeptoids.

I have no time to put up an official timeline to what happened. You guys have had much time to compile a new 9/11 Report by yourselves in this very forum. You have not done so. Hence, there's no paper you abide by. That's so covenient. guess what, we don't abide by any paper either.

We abide by the premise that there IS no standing paper that explains what happened. Therefore the need for a new investigation.

There's nothing to debate. There's a need for accountability and real skepticism. Real skepticism this time. For our own good. Or else, those who made the same mistakes that allowed 9/11 to happen, might to it again.

Stop making a big case out of Conspiracy Theorists... and take a good look at how these same agencies have been taking care of you. Start being skeptic of what they disclose for you, not on whatever CD explanation some Joe put up on SLC. Be skeptic to the papers that really matter. And get off your OCT high horse until you have a real Official Story to defend. That's when you'll have a real and caring government to defend.

There's no official story... hence, there's nothing to debate.

Now please tell me where did I get it wrong. Except in not being a loyalist.
----

and I leave ya with a video that just came out of 9/11 Blogger. Whistleblowers, sweet. :|

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1956542165192088795

 

[Tbone]

Now please tell me where did I get it wrong. Except in not being a loyalist.

You provided no evidence to cover-ups or any reason at all to believe something is "fishy."

 

[MG1962]

There's no official story... hence, there's nothing to debate.

Now please tell me where did I get it wrong. Except in not being a loyalist.

Well there is no Conspiracy theory either. Everyone seems to hold to their version of what occured and why. So maybe get your own house in order before poking sticks into our little ant hill

 

[beachnut]

Meh I stayed up "late" today thinking about some things...
I haven't had time to mine reports for a single timeline as I said I would.. so instead...
I stuck up with Greening's topic line "What debate?" from a few weeks ago and come up with the following rant...
-----
There's nothing to debate.. because this debate has never started..
There is no official story provided by the government
Many side reports and documents may explain what happened, but there's not a single collection of these reports in one paper.

How can there be a debate on government complicity when congress does not wish to debate?

How can there be a debate for accountability when NORAD and FAA makes no charges against any official that may have been responsible for the so many errors?

How can I argue that the Official Account given by the government is false, when there is NONE?

There's nothing to debate. Planes crashed into buildings. Buildings fell down.

The 9/11 Commission Report is a scam. If you accept that trash as the story that will run down in your children's history books, you're a crook. It did not cover the money trail nor any other involvement besides de 19 hijackers. It was not assigned to do so.

The NIST is impartial and does not cover the explosive collapses of the twin towers. It was not assigned to do so.

No wonder there's nothing to debate.

If anything, can we debate on why isn't there a unified document given by the government yet? Or better yet, why do you self-labeled skeptics ACCEPT that there's yet no such work put out by them?

Shouldn't YOU skeptics be the first to, you know be SKEPTIC about them covering up their asses?

Shouldn't YOU skeptics be the first to push for accountability?

Apparently, NO.

Everything is OK, it was all explained to us. The twoof movement is delusional and all there's in to 9/11 was a gigantic cock-up to our defense system. Nothing to worry about folks. See, there's a few timelines here and some tapes here. Yup. Massive error in multiple agencies. There's no reason to look for the money trail folks, we know those stinky arabs were in it. Yeah.

I respect you guys deeply for all your scientific credentials and all. But god, can you please be real skeptics for once?

Can you admit that something smells fishy?

LIHOI, LIHOP, MIHOP, doesn't matter.

There was something wrong. there was cover up. Justified or not, there was cover up. And there still is, today.

And, most of all, can you admit that there's a need for a new investigative commission?

There's nothing to debate. Either you're skeptics or you're skeptoids.

I have no time to put up an official timeline to what happened. You guys have had much time to compile a new 9/11 Report by yourselves in this very forum. You have not done so. Hence, there's no paper you abide by. That's so covenient. guess what, we don't abide by any paper either.

We abide by the premise that there IS no standing paper that explains what happened. Therefore the need for a new investigation.

There's nothing to debate. There's a need for accountability and real skepticism. Real skepticism this time. For our own good. Or else, those who made the same mistakes that allowed 9/11 to happen, might to it again.

Stop making a big case out of Conspiracy Theorists... and take a good look at how these same agencies have been taking care of you. Start being skeptic of what they disclose for you, not on whatever CD explanation some Joe put up on SLC. Be skeptic to the papers that really matter. And get off your OCT high horse until you have a real Official Story to defend. That's when you'll have a real and caring government to defend.

There's no official story... hence, there's nothing to debate.

Now please tell me where did I get it wrong. Except in not being a loyalist.
----

and I leave ya with a video that just came out of 9/11 Blogger. Whistleblowers, sweet. :|

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1956542165192088795

You are right it is not a debate. Either you have facts and evidence or you do not. You must not have facts and you want to say something but you have no facts.

You want to say NORAD stood down. Why? Cause you heard somebody say it? Where are the facts? Why were f-15s in the air on 9/11, all day long after we all finally figured out people were doing something new, as in a surprise. Oops you forgot to get a job in NORAD and tell us all it was coming. It was your fault.

You want to say so much but you are unable because you have no facts on 9/11. Every single thing you did not day but tried to say is junk and you will never find evidence to present a valid argument.

I did not know a few anti-knowledge people had started a 9/11 truth movement until I heard Charlie Sheen say 19 guys could not do it. Charlie Sheen said no one could fly those fancy maneuvers on 9/11. I am a pilot, have been flying for 33 years as a pilot/instructor with an FAA ATP license. There were no fancy maneuvers on 9/11, just rookie flying. Any kid off the street could do the flying on 9/11, it was too easy to do. This is one of the many red flags to identify truthers.

You know someone is a truther without facts when they say what Charlie said, or they say NORAD stood down, or "free fall", or "pull it", and then it gets even easier with, dustification, vaporized, beam weapon, and so many other truly insane statements. Truthers do not even try hard to research their own lack of facts and evidence. Why?

Yes from the moment I heard Charlie Sheen I looked up some stuff on 9/11 and found so much anti-knowledge information on 9/11 I was wonder how the people could function in a world where the ability to think comes in handy. I found so called expert like Fetzer spewing so many lies I could not understand how anyone could believe anything the entire 9/11 truth movement had to say. No fact, no evidence, just lies and liars.

I am not sure why you try to even support the movement with zero facts to support outlandishly wild conclusions not backed up by any facts.

What is real funny over 99.9 percent of all engineers in the US, are not in the truth movement and only people with out the ability to use knowledge and rational thinking are in the cult of 9/11 "truth" made up of lies.

Why are all truthers unable to find any facts to support their movement? And why do they present real bad videos with no facts?

 

[beachnut]

I have tried to give each member, who is in the 9/11 truth movement, a chance to give me one fact to support their ideas on 9/11. No one can.

I have talked to Fetzer, emailed him, and found not one single fact. I was trying to find anything. Pilots for truth, no facts. LCF no facts.

Why? Why are is the entire 9/11 truth movement facts less and unable to see it?

Where are your facts, you left them out of your first post, why?

 

[Quad4_72]

Read the NIST report and then tell us why it is wrong. Thanks.

 

[John Blonn]

There's nothing to debate.. because this debate has never started..

You should first define your terms. What do you mean by "debate?" To me, there is nothing to "debate" because I consider most 9/11 questions solved. So what exactly should be under discussion?

There is no official story provided by the government
Many side reports and documents may explain what happened, but there's not a single collection of these reports in one paper.

What do you want, one HUGE, 50,000 page book detailing every single bit and piece of the story? Why should this even matter? There is never, ever one "master narrative" of any event, so why should this be any different?

How can there be a debate on government complicity when congress does not wish to debate?

Congress? What do they have to debate?

How can there be a debate for accountability when NORAD and FAA makes no charges against any official that may have been responsible for the so many errors?

Maybe NORAD and FAA are making no "charges" against anybody because there are no charges to make.

How can I argue that the Official Account given by the government is false, when there is NONE?

9/11 Commission + NIST are as "official" as you are going to get. The government has a position on this event; apparently they need to put it in a multi-volume masterwork for you to consider it.

There's nothing to debate. Planes crashed into buildings. Buildings fell down.

Yeah, that's basically how it went.

The 9/11 Commission Report is a scam. If you accept that trash as the story that will run down in your children's history books, you're a crook.

Evidence? And an appeal to emotion.

It did not cover the money trail nor any other involvement besides de 19 hijackers. It was not assigned to do so.

Umm...you answered your own question here.

The NIST is impartial and does not cover the explosive collapses of the twin towers. It was not assigned to do so. No wonder there's nothing to debate.

Sigh. Please stop the weasel words. Very annoying.

If anything, can we debate on why isn't there a unified document given by the government yet? Or better yet, why do you self-labeled skeptics ACCEPT that there's yet no such work put out by them?

No actually most skeptics are content to pore over various, disperse works. They don't need "9/11 for Dummies."

Shouldn't YOU skeptics be the first to, you know be SKEPTIC about them covering up their asses?

Evidence that they are "covering up their asses?"

Shouldn't YOU skeptics be the first to push for accountability?

Apparently, NO.

I think you'll find most JREFs are quite critical of the government on the whole.

Everything is OK, it was all explained to us. The twoof movement is delusional and all there's in to 9/11 was a gigantic cock-up to our defense system. Nothing to worry about folks. See, there's a few timelines here and some tapes here. Yup. Massive error in multiple agencies. There's no reason to look for the money trail folks, we know those stinky arabs were in it. Yeah.

Your rhetorical style does nothing. Please make an argument using evidence.

I respect you guys deeply for all your scientific credentials and all. But god, can you please be real skeptics for once?

Can you admit that something smells fishy?

Thanks for the respect. But evidence for said fishyness?

LIHOI, LIHOP, MIHOP, doesn't matter.

There was something wrong. there was cover up. Justified or not, there was cover up. And there still is, today.

Argument by assertion. Please provide evidence.

And, most of all, can you admit that there's a need for a new investigative commission?

Made up of whom? And for what purpose?

There's nothing to debate. Either you're skeptics or you're skeptoids.

I have no time to put up an official timeline to what happened. You guys have had much time to compile a new 9/11 Report by yourselves in this very forum. You have not done so. Hence, there's no paper you abide by. That's so covenient. guess what, we don't abide by any paper either.

LOL! Right, we're gonna go ahead and "compile" a new 9/11 report. While I'm at it, let me go reinvent the wheel. Three times.

We abide by the premise that there IS no standing paper that explains what happened. Therefore the need for a new investigation.

"We?" What exactly is a "standing paper?"

There's nothing to debate. There's a need for accountability and real skepticism. Real skepticism this time. For our own good. Or else, those who made the same mistakes that allowed 9/11 to happen, might to it again.

So you're LIHOP here. But above you insinuated MIHOP. I don't understand how you can hold these incommensurable positions, unless of course you just WANT something to be "fishy" about that day.

Stop making a big case out of Conspiracy Theorists... and take a good look at how these same agencies have been taking care of you. Start being skeptic of what they disclose for you, not on whatever CD explanation some Joe put up on SLC.

You assume that we aren't "skeptical" of the government's information because we accept their explanation. Has it occured to you that maybe we did in fact evaluate the evidence with a critical mind and, shock, came to agree with it because it represented a theory best supported by the evidence?

Be skeptic to the papers that really matter. And get off your OCT high horse until you have a real Official Story to defend. That's when you'll have a real and caring government to defend.

There's no official story... hence, there's nothing to debate.

Now please tell me where did I get it wrong. Except in not being a loyalist.

This post sounds like one large plea. You've got nothing left except this desperate rant. Time to move on, most of the nation has.

 

[Corsair 115]

The NIST is impartial and does not cover the explosive collapses of the twin towers.

I fail to see what was "explosive" about the way the twin towers collapsed. In fact, they looked just like what I'd expect to see if large structures were collapsing as a result of structural failure. Nothing "explosive" about it at all.

 

[sivazh]

The number 1 tell tale sign of troofers and their absolute lack of perspective is that they NEVER try to debunk any actual evidence. EVER.

They can point to WTC7 all day long and say it LOOKS like a controlled demolition. They can speculate about suitcase nukes, beam weapons, dustification, blah, blah, blah, but who cares?

One, they can't prove their theoris. So, right there it's over.

But, notice how they NEVER even attempt to debunk the "official conspiracy theory?" Simply saying it's lies or that every single person who supports it works for the CIA doesn't cut it.

Debunk the 9/11 Commission Report. Debunk NIST. Debunk Popular Mechanics. Debunk "Inside 9/11." Debunk "World Trade Center: Rise and Fall of an American Icon."

Debunk every single piece of evidence, photos, videos, interviews, audio and video tapes, pictures, documents, etc. etc. in those works, and then we can talk.

 

[LashL]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

 

[hellaeon]

IF you can explain why the NIST report or any other report is wrong cool, fire away. Also please show us the evidence of the 'paper trail' and 'money trail'.
Rather then sit there and complain and offer an emotional piece about your disdain of policy, debunk the 9/11 Commission Report, debunk NIST and debunk Popular Mechanics.

You simply have a lack of understanding of government policies, departmental procedures and codes and other such advanced political and legal processes. Even in your opening post you have mentioned several items that I know have been explained to you in detail. You have chosen to abandom the logical reasoning offered to you and embrace your own conclusions regardless.

And you wonder why some people grow hostile to your cause? How many times do you want it explained? You wont hear anything till its the answer you want.

Cheers

 

[Mobyseven]

Meh I stayed up "late" today thinking about some things...
I haven't had time to mine reports for a single timeline as I said I would.. so instead...
I stuck up with Greening's topic line "What debate?" from a few weeks ago and come up with the following rant...
-----
There's nothing to debate.. because this debate has never started..
There is no official story provided by the government
Many side reports and documents may explain what happened, but there's not a single collection of these reports in one paper.

How can there be a debate on government complicity when congress does not wish to debate?

How can there be a debate for accountability when NORAD and FAA makes no charges against any official that may have been responsible for the so many errors?

How can I argue that the Official Account given by the government is false, when there is NONE?

There's nothing to debate. Planes crashed into buildings. Buildings fell down.

The 9/11 Commission Report is a scam. If you accept that trash as the story that will run down in your children's history books, you're a crook. It did not cover the money trail nor any other involvement besides de 19 hijackers. It was not assigned to do so.

The NIST is impartial and does not cover the explosive collapses of the twin towers. It was not assigned to do so.

No wonder there's nothing to debate.

If anything, can we debate on why isn't there a unified document given by the government yet? Or better yet, why do you self-labeled skeptics ACCEPT that there's yet no such work put out by them?

Shouldn't YOU skeptics be the first to, you know be SKEPTIC about them covering up their asses?

Shouldn't YOU skeptics be the first to push for accountability?

Apparently, NO.

Everything is OK, it was all explained to us. The twoof movement is delusional and all there's in to 9/11 was a gigantic cock-up to our defense system. Nothing to worry about folks. See, there's a few timelines here and some tapes here. Yup. Massive error in multiple agencies. There's no reason to look for the money trail folks, we know those stinky arabs were in it. Yeah.

I respect you guys deeply for all your scientific credentials and all. But god, can you please be real skeptics for once?

Can you admit that something smells fishy?

LIHOI, LIHOP, MIHOP, doesn't matter.

There was something wrong. there was cover up. Justified or not, there was cover up. And there still is, today.

And, most of all, can you admit that there's a need for a new investigative commission?

There's nothing to debate. Either you're skeptics or you're skeptoids.

I have no time to put up an official timeline to what happened. You guys have had much time to compile a new 9/11 Report by yourselves in this very forum. You have not done so. Hence, there's no paper you abide by. That's so covenient. guess what, we don't abide by any paper either.

We abide by the premise that there IS no standing paper that explains what happened. Therefore the need for a new investigation.

There's nothing to debate. There's a need for accountability and real skepticism. Real skepticism this time. For our own good. Or else, those who made the same mistakes that allowed 9/11 to happen, might to it again.

Stop making a big case out of Conspiracy Theorists... and take a good look at how these same agencies have been taking care of you. Start being skeptic of what they disclose for you, not on whatever CD explanation some Joe put up on SLC. Be skeptic to the papers that really matter. And get off your OCT high horse until you have a real Official Story to defend. That's when you'll have a real and caring government to defend.

There's no official story... hence, there's nothing to debate.

Now please tell me where did I get it wrong. Except in not being a loyalist.
----

and I leave ya with a video that just came out of 9/11 Blogger. Whistleblowers, sweet. :|

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1956542165192088795

I hate to sound predictable, but:

You say there is no official story. I assume this means that you don't consider the NIST report to be part of the government's story? Or the 9/11 Commission Report?

Yes or no?

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You want to say NORAD stood down. Why? Cause you heard somebody say it? Where are the facts?

You want to say 19 hijackers did it. Why? Cause you heard somebody say it?

Where are the FACTS?

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

IF you can explain why the NIST report or any other report is wrong cool, fire away. Also please show us the evidence of the 'paper trail' and 'money trail'.
Rather then sit there and complain and offer an emotional piece about your disdain of policy, debunk the 9/11 Commission Report, debunk NIST and debunk Popular Mechanics.

Many entire books have been written, doing just this.

I would start a thread, posting David Ray Griffin's Omissions And Distortions and Debunking the Debunkers books, one paragraph at a time, but I'm sure somebody would immediately censor me here for posting copyrighted text. Or, Beachnut will just scream "he's a liar!"

 

[Mobyseven]

Many entire books have been written, doing just this.

I would start a thread, posting David Ray Griffin's Omissions And Distortions and Debunking the Debunkers books, one paragraph at a time, but I'm sure somebody would immediately censor me here for posting copyrighted text. Or, Beachnut will just scream "he's a liar!"

Hey, SCG - this is on the first page of the forum! You don't have to post anything about it, because it's already been looked at and evaluated!

If you have any criticisms, you might want to post them in that thread.

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Hey, SCG - this is on the first page of the forum! You don't have to post anything about it, because it's already been looked at and evaluated!

If you have any criticisms, you might want to post them in that thread.

Looked at and evaluated. MMMMKAY.

I'll check it on out. I just read about 10 points. Same old "debunking." If I find time this week I'll go through Gumboots analysis, as I read the book. Thanks for the link!

 

[Mobyseven]

Looked at and evaluated. MMMMKAY.

I'll check it on out. I just read about 10 points. Same old "debunking." If I find time this week I'll go through Gumboots analysis, as I read the book. Thanks for the link!

No worries.

I would like to point out that it's the same old debunking because unlike many conpiracy sites, the reality of what happened doesn't change with each retelling...

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

No worries.

I would like to point out that it's the same old debunking because unlike many conpiracy sites, the reality of what happened doesn't change with each retelling...

Ummm...

The reality never changes.

But the JREF/debunker/OCT story does. It is constantly changing. Like this article (Debunking Conspiracy Theorists) points out. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm

The last time I posted this article, the responses I got were "that's from 2003! How about something more recent!" Well, it makes a point. A good one. Read it, please.

 

[qarnos]

You want to say 19 hijackers did it. Why? Cause you heard somebody say it?

Where are the FACTS?

Shamelessly pulled from Wikipedia, with source-links intact.

Witness reports of hijackers

American Airlines Flight 11

Two flight attendants called the American Airlines reservation desk during the hijacking. Betty Ong reported that "the four hijackers had come from first-class seats: 2A, 2B, 9A, and 9B." ^[1]. Flight attendant Amy Sweeney called a flight services manager at Logan Airport and described them as Middle Eastern^[1]. She gave the staff the seat numbers and they pulled up the ticket and credit card info of the hijackers, identifying Mohamed Atta al-Sayed^[2].

American Airlines Flight 77

Two hijackers, Hani Hanjour and Majed Moqed were identified by clerks as having bought single, first-class tickets for Flight 77 from Advance Travel Service in Totowa, NJ with $1,842.25 in cash ^[1]. Renee May, a flight attendant on Flight 77, used a cell phone to call her mother in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane^[3]. Passenger Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States stating the flight had been hijacked and the hijackers had knives and box cutters ^[4]. Two of the passengers had been on the FBI's terrorist-alert list: Khalid Almihdhar, and Nawaf Alhazmi.

United Airlines Flight 93

Jeremy Glick stated that the hijackers were Arabic-looking, wearing red headbands, carrying knives.^[1][2]. ABC news acquired an apparent inadvertent radio transmission with a voice identified as Ziad Jarrah announcing "Hi, this is the captain, We'd like you all to remain seated. There is a bomb on board. And we are going to turn back to the airport. And they had our demands, so please remain quiet."^[3]
United Airlines Flight 175

A United mechanic was called by a flight attendant who stated the crew had been murdered and the plane hijacked.^[4]

So what do you have about the alleged NORAD stand-down?

 

[Cylinder]

I don't want to seem like I'm piling on here, but can you point out the errors made by NORAD on 9-11?